imfallen_angel:HindiDiscoMonster: Maybe most of you will grow up and get your heads out of your asses. Here's hoping.

nah... that's why the world is the way it is... with people stuck believing that their beliefs are the right ones.

Personally, as a secularist, I would love to see moderates of all religious persuasions join forces with "moderate" atheists (whatever the hell "moderate atheist" really means) to promote, well, secularism. Something like an interfaith dialogue, but including agnostics and atheists.

I guess by "moderate atheist" I mean something like people who want freedom of religion so they don't get hassled for being atheist, in a secular society, but who aren't of the "all religion is evil and must be stomped out" hardcore variety. I'm sure we could have a nice long Fark thread just on the question of what exactly "moderate" atheism is and who is a "moderate" versus a "hardcore" or "extremist" atheist. I bet we could get 500 posts just arguing about what terms to use.

Agent Smiths Laugh:If I may ask a hypothetical questions then...You come upon a burning building and there is a young girl trapped inside. You are the only one around who can help. Do you help the girl inside and why?

I risk my life to save the girl as I consider that the moral course of action. Were there professionals around to do the job, I'd let them as their chances of success would likely be far greater than mine.

Morality being demonstrably subjective, and not demonstrably objective.

Why would you risk your own life to save another if there is no effect upon your soul? If you have no soul...If this life is ALL you have, why would you risk it for something that has no tangible reward?Religion is a huge tempering force for the EGO.

You might run into a burning building, possibly maiming yourself for life to save a girl... and I admire that.Yet, I would argue that such a SELFLESS action is much less likely to be done by someone who believes that there is no good/bad impact upon him to let the girl burn to death... since there IS the chance of getting hurt without much reward.

/In regards to Pascal's Wager - I referenced that earlier in this thread... I am well aware of it and find it to be VERY convincing.//I also am not so full of myself and heavy in EGO to argue that an intangible spiritual concept like GOD follows basic logical rules such as 'appeal to the masses' as you put it in Latin "argumentum ad populum"///Belief does not follow logic, as it cannot be proven true or false... hence the word BELIEF.

bullsballs:Thanks to atheism, Sadism and living for the moment is AOK!There is no God, and no need to worry about retribution after you die, as there is no afterlife, no Heaven or hell.Everything is of man, so you can make your own rules to live and die by.

Why is it that some religious folk are so sure that without the fear of eternal damnation they would instantly embark on a killrape spree the likes of which have never been imagined?

NostroZ:/In regards to Pascal's Wager - I referenced that earlier in this thread... I am well aware of it and find it to be VERY convincing.

Just FYI: almost nobody actually makes the Pascal's Wager argument unironically these days. Unless you're doing one of those "How silly can I make my trolling and still be taken seriously" things, you're better off going with a different piece of theistic illogic - one that has a more time-tested appeal, like perhaps the "The universe is too finely tuned to have come about by chance" argument.

Rabbitgod:NostroZ: Inflatable Rhetoric: It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

Hey man, did you read above in your own quote what I wrote about comparisons?The soviet union did not have a religion. In fact, it was outlawed by the communist party.The Soviets killed millions of their own (under Stalin).The same thing occurred under Mao in China with the Great Leap forward. Millions of Chinese starved to death, as with Stalin.

For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

The atheists are just redefining and spinning to avoid being held responsible for anything bad, while trying to claim credit for anything good... same as any other religion, really.

/the Nazis were the first to codify the doublethink two-step//"Your conspiracy theories are disproven, Jew haters." "No, we're anti-semites, we are opposed to all semitic people for sound scientific reasons."///"Your pseudo-science is debunked, anti-semites." "No, we're not anti-semites, we hate only the Jews for their religious fanaticism and their conspiracies to destroy us."

ciberido:imfallen_angel: HindiDiscoMonster: Maybe most of you will grow up and get your heads out of your asses. Here's hoping.

nah... that's why the world is the way it is... with people stuck believing that their beliefs are the right ones.

Personally, as a secularist, I would love to see moderates of all religious persuasions join forces with "moderate" atheists (whatever the hell "moderate atheist" really means) to promote, well, secularism. Something like an interfaith dialogue, but including agnostics and atheists.

I guess by "moderate atheist" I mean something like people who want freedom of religion so they don't get hassled for being atheist, in a secular society, but who aren't of the "all religion is evil and must be stomped out" hardcore variety. I'm sure we could have a nice long Fark thread just on the question of what exactly "moderate" atheism is and who is a "moderate" versus a "hardcore" or "extremist" atheist. I bet we could get 500 posts just arguing about what terms to use.

As in starting another one?... :-p

The number of threads that whine and rant on and on about defining everything and anything has already been done to death, to be honest.

What is comes down to is that if someone else has another point of view about something's definition, they WILL go on and on and on to convince the other to see things their way and accept their point of view on the definition of the word, topic, idea, etc.

Sounds familiar?

All I can say that most of these threads degenerate fairly in the same way, which is ironic, as they follow the exact same problem as the "real world" issues when it comes to religion, politics, sports, colour of dress, etc.:

"ego"

Which is what I consider the biggest flaw in humanity, and responsible for just about all wars and conflicts throughout history.

NostroZ:You might run into a burning building, possibly maiming yourself for life to save a girl... and I admire that.

Hold on there buddy. You never mentioned the possibility of being maimed. What would be the odds on maiming? Furthermore, how could you be maimed and save her at the same time? I suppose if you had to jump with her out of multi-story building, but you never specified it was a multi-story building. Which floor was she on by the way? Did I put on hairspray that day? What kind of shoes was I wearing? Office shoes, or sandals?

adamatari:I think the atheists saying Islam stands out as particularly bad have never read the old testament (go check out the Brick Testament, particularly Judges, anc come back to me), or never read history (nasty wars like the Thirty Years' War, no Muslims involved). Nor do they seem to know the facts on the ground as to who is really commited to cultural genocide and assimillation of non-believers. There are WAY more Christian and Mormon missionaries than Islamic ones.

I have read the old testament, and it's every bit as barbaric as the Koran.

Biological Ali:NostroZ: /In regards to Pascal's Wager - I referenced that earlier in this thread... I am well aware of it and find it to be VERY convincing.

Just FYI: almost nobody actually makes the Pascal's Wager argument unironically these days. Unless you're doing one of those "How silly can I make my trolling and still be taken seriously" things, you're better off going with a different piece of theistic illogic - one that has a more time-tested appeal, like perhaps the "The universe is too finely tuned to have come about by chance" argument.

Wikipedia quote:Voltaire (another prominent French writer of the Enlightenment) a generation after Pascal, rejected the notion that the wager was 'proof of God' as "indecent and childish", adding, "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists." Pascal, however, did not advance the wager as a proof, but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision, that is 'impossible to avoid'. He argued that abstaining is not an option, and 'reason is incapable of divining the truth'; thus, a decision of whether or not to believe must be made by 'considering the consequences of each possibility'.

I'm not being ironic... but in truth, I see that believing is a better bet than not.It is a bet that my ancestors made on faith and I'd rather not be the smartass who after 4000 years says I know better.To believe in something versus nothing adds morality and direction to my current life, as well as the peace-of mind with hedging my bets for a possible afterlife. That to me is much more comforting than arguing something that cannot be proven true/false.

NostroZ:as well as the peace-of mind with hedging my bets for a possible afterlife

On the off chance that you're being serious, this part isn't even mathematically sound (which, in addition to the absurd suggestion that people can just decide to believe something, is why Pascal's Wager today is seen more a joke than a respectable argument).

For instance, if you've gone with the wrong deity, the real one might send you to hell for picking the wrong side, whereas if you didn't believe in any god at all you might have been spared. It's also possible that the real god is a trickster who would send everyone who believes in him to hell, and only spare those who don't believe in him.

If you account for all possibilities, it's clear that you're not actually improving your odds by randomly picking a deity and believing in him (assuming you can even do that to begin with - most people, barring some sort of mental illness, can't actually just start believing in things like that).

NostroZ:I'm not being ironic... but in truth, I see that believing is a better bet than not

Which god? if you get that one wrong, it's just as bad as not believing.

Part b) How much of a dick would your god have to be if he would let you go to heaven just by saying "you know, I had no evidence to believe anything, but I decided to say that I believed in you hoping that you would be fooled into thinking I was a true believer and not send me to hell"

God: "Sounds good, go into heaven"Ghandi :" I tried to do good things and free people."God: "Did you believe the way the Catholic Church told you to believe?"Ghandi: "No, I was a Hindu"God: "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to hell you go!"

Biological Ali:NostroZ: as well as the peace-of mind with hedging my bets for a possible afterlife

On the off chance that you're being serious, this part isn't even mathematically sound (which, in addition to the absurd suggestion that people can just decide to believe something, is why Pascal's Wager today is seen more a joke than a respectable argument).

For instance, if you've gone with the wrong deity, the real one might send you to hell for picking the wrong side, whereas if you didn't believe in any god at all you might have been spared. It's also possible that the real god is a trickster who would send everyone who believes in him to hell, and only spare those who don't believe in him.

If you account for all possibilities, it's clear that you're not actually improving your odds by randomly picking a deity and believing in him (assuming you can even do that to begin with - most people, barring some sort of mental illness, can't actually just start believing in things like that).

You are under the incorrect impression that I care what you call God.I only care about the morally right actions that is living God's way. It does not matter if you call him Christ, Buddah, Allah, etc.

I subscribe to the philosophical framework that is clearly articulated in the reference I provided earlier about Pascal's Wager.Here it is reposted:Furthermore, ecumenical interpretations of the Wager argue that it could even be suggested that believing in a generic God, or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that conception of God has similar essential characteristics of the conception of God considered in Pascal's Wager (perhaps the God of Aristotle). Proponents of this line of reasoning suggest that either all of the conceptions of God or gods throughout history truly boil down to just a small set of "genuine options", or that if Pascal's Wager can simply bring a person to believe in "generic theism" it has done its job.

You are trying to pigeon hole me into a belief system that I do not hold.This style of argument is called Straw-Man, as it does not address the REAL-MAN's argument, but puffs up an imaginary weak argument to knock down.

NostroZ:Agent Smiths Laugh: If I may ask a hypothetical questions then...You come upon a burning building and there is a young girl trapped inside. You are the only one around who can help. Do you help the girl inside and why?

I risk my life to save the girl as I consider that the moral course of action. Were there professionals around to do the job, I'd let them as their chances of success would likely be far greater than mine.

Morality being demonstrably subjective, and not demonstrably objective.

Why would you risk your own life to save another if there is no effect upon your soul? If you have no soul...

Correct, so far as I am aware, I have no indentifiable quality known as a soul. I would do it because I personally find it important to preserve lives according to my own moral compass (again, morality being demonstrably subjective). I would do it because I would want someone to do the same for me. I would do it because I would want someone to do the same for my daughter. I would do it because I am, by nature, a social creature that's part of a social species that has learned that working to preserve the well being of each other is ultimately beneficial to both the individual and the whole in many, if not most, cases. I would do it because I potentially risk retribution by my civilization (i.e. fellow humans) for failing to act in the common (and individual, i.e. the girl's) good.

Ultimately I would do it because I feel it is right (for me) to do so, even if later I found reason to question that assumption. Indeed, I would say that it is because of my ego that I would not allow myself to do otherwise.

I would not, at any point, do so because I feared judgement by some invisible, unidentifiable, indemonstrable force. I am, so far as can be empirically manifested, answerable only to forces I can identify.

I can identify my fellow humans, my laws, my civilization. Ultimately I can identify myself. Those forces I am answerable to, and thus those forces are the ones I consider.

If this life is ALL you have, why would you risk it for something that has no tangible reward?Religion is a huge tempering force for the EGO.

Because nobody has ever used religion to inflate their own egos?

Are you unaware of the innumerable examples of exactly that? Fred Phelps? L. Ron Hubbard? Jim Bakker? Peter Popoff? Just to name a few, just the tip of the iceberg.

What about the ultimate ego god? What's tempering his ego? (since we seem to be referring to the christian god)

Exodus 20:3, 4, and 7 beg your attention among many, many other examples in the bible.

You might run into a burning building, possibly maiming yourself for life to save a girl... and I admire that.Yet, I would argue that such a SELFLESS action is much less likely to be done by someone who believes that there is no good/bad impact upon him to let the girl burn to death... since there IS the chance of getting hurt without much reward.

/In regards to Pascal's Wager - I referenced that earlier in this thread... I am well aware of it and find it to be VERY convincing.

//I also am not so full of myself and heavy in EGO to argue that an intangible spiritual concept like GOD follows basic logical rules such as 'appeal to the masses' as you put it in Latin "argumentum ad populum"///Belief does not follow logic, as it cannot be proven true or false... hence the word BELIEF.

While we're at it, why do you capitalize ego? Also, your statements remind me of this to a degree.

Humanity survived perfectly fine before it invented religion, it will survive just fine if we dump it. Religion was created when humans were still dumb and frightened of the world. They needed to explain why the lightning struck, why the river ebbed and flooded, why the animals left and returned, why others thought and acted the way they did. Lightning's origin was varied: two mighty brothers fighting over a woman, their hammers making great sparks as they clashed together; Zeus tossing his signature weapon at those who annoyed him; a gigantic bird spirit who created storms and fired lightning from its flapping wings; Thor's mighty hammer blasting his enemies with the fury of lightning. Today, through observation, testing, and investigation, we now know that lightning is created by an imbalance of positive and negative ions re-balancing through a discharge of energy. Nearly all of the "gods do it" explanations have been replaced by scientific explanations.

As social mammals, humans already had a sense of morality. Random fighting and attacking each other weakens and can destroy a group, while sharing and working together strengthens the group. Humans with their intelligence realized this more than other animals do, and it developed into a code that ensured the group would survive and prosper. This happened before we began making up deities for every tree, rock, stream, and chipmunk. Religion is not needed in order to be a good person.

Nowadays, religion is far too often used as a means to control people, to extort money and loyalty. Prophesies of death to the non-believers and eternal paradise for the righteous are everywhere. Not only do they divide people, they make people waste their only life in reality for a vague promise of possibility after death. One only needs to read the texts of the religious to see that their gods are far from the benevolent beings people say they are. God places the one thing he doesn't want humans touching in the middle of the garden, then fails to notice an obvious evil (which God created) sneak in to tempt the humans, and his reaction when he finds out is to curse all of creation to punish a single species until he decides to destroy that creation and send most of humanity to eternal unspeakable torture. This is not a being that I would swear fealty to, why would a perfect and all-loving God make such mistakes and react so violently to humans becoming intelligent?

NostroZ:Rabbitgod: For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

Thank you my inquisitive friend!

This is precisely what I have been trying to articulate.Atheism undermines a VERY needed circuit breaker in the human condition. EGOIn these Atheist institutions the human condition was still alive and well... and the human condition is TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING... if that something is no longer God, then it becomes Man.

That man is the 'cult of personality' that often takes place when people look towards MAN instead of GOD for life's answers.Therefore, my argument that religion does more good than harm is reinforced by the examples of China/USSR where when religion was forcefully removed, a cult of personality took over and people looked towards a MAN for morality. And as history has showed us MAN is not as MERCIFUL as GOD.

Again you failed to get the point and you cherry picked what I wrote, a true Atheist does not prop up philosophies, counties, objects, people or themselves into the possession of Gods because Gods do not exist. Communism was simply a new religion with new Gods where priests declared themselves as Atheists because they no longer believed in the old Gods. Thats why I called them so called Atheistsbecause in reality they were not. As far as the fanatic is concerned the title of the religion doesn't matter. What religion ask of people is not that they become moral people, but that people must surrender their morality to the religion without question. And ultimately since religion is human made, and human run and, there's always a pope, king, supreme leader, or televangelist on top of that religion giving an official interpretation, the people who give themselves to God are actually just handing themselves over to a man.

The true Atheist is humbled by the great vastness of space and time and realizes that we are all equally insignificant with in the universe, and that it is up to each individual to make life valuable, meaningful, and positive for their own sake and for the sake of those they love and their fellow human beings, and science is one of the best tools we have for doing just that.

/If it was my foot you were referring to imfallen_angel, I'd have to imagine it taste like holy shiat since I'm clearly shoving it up god's ass.

NostroZ:I subscribe to the philosophical framework that is clearly articulated in the reference I provided earlier about Pascal's Wager.Here it is reposted:

Not sure how you could have missed it, but I was addressing that specifically in my previous post. I.e., the fact that Pascal's Wager relies on a completely arbitrary reduction of the sample space in order to "work" (which, among other things, is why it's laughed at by those who have even a cursory familiarity with logic - including many theists).

Of course, you probably didn't miss that at all, and are just trying to get some more mileage out of this fairly obvious troll. I'd humour you some more, but Pascal's Wager is just too silly to bother with.

Agent Smiths Laugh:While we're at it, why do you capitalize ego? Also, your statements remind me of this to a degree.

I capitalized ego in the same sentence as I capitalized god, since both are bigger than life forces.

I definitely see what you mean about the ego being manipulated by religions. Yet, there are religions like Buddhism which seek to eliminate the ego. I'd also argue that the average believer gives up a part of their selfish interests in order to serve the community better (see church sales, philanthropy, etc.).

In general, the human ego and god are inter-wound.My issue with atheism is that it does not address the issue of ego.Ego that when left unchecked has caused rulers of countries to kill millions in the name of progress.

sudo give me more cowbell:PunGent: Believers in any and all gods, including Unitarians. ( I have Unitarians in my family tree and circle of friends, btw)

Well then you obviously haven't spoken to them about what they believe. Some Unitarians believe in god, a lot are atheist, a lot more fall into the Spinoza's god territory.

It's Dawkins' point, not mine; have you read his work?

Yes, but it is you who is claiming that all Unitarians believe in a god of some kind, and if you're going to talk about a group of people and what they believe in, then it is usually helpful to actually know something about what they believe in -cause then you'd know what you're talking about, and that's always a good thing.

It's possible that the disagreement the two of you are having comes from the fact that, historically speaking, you're referring to two different groups that merged.: the Unitarians and the Universalists, who are now one body collectively known as Unitarian-Universalists.

NostroZ:give me doughnuts: what I do know is that nothing I do in life will have any effect on whether or not there is any "afterlife", or what form it will take.

I am envious of your certainty.

I have a hard time believing that billions of people on this planet are wrong and I am right. Since every religion is based on a soul that is affected by this life's events, you are in a VERY minority view. But I respect your life's choice and hopefully when the day comes to both of us, then we will know who is RIGHT for sure.

I'd rather hedge my bets and be a good person, as proscribed by all the faiths of the world.

If I may ask a hypothetical questions then...You come upon a burning building and there is a young girl trapped inside. You are the only one around who can help. Do you help the girl inside and why?

Yes.Why? Because I want to. Ultimately, that's the only reason anybody does anything

Inflatable Rhetoric:NostroZ: Inflatable Rhetoric: It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

Hey man, did you read above in your own quote what I wrote about comparisons?The soviet union did not have a religion. In fact, it was outlawed by the communist party.The Soviets killed millions of their own (under Stalin).The same thing occurred under Mao in China with the Great Leap forward. Millions of Chinese starved to death, as with Stalin.

For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Really? You haven't heard about the Inquisition?

He may well have heard about the Inquisition, but sadly, NostroZ is not renown for his rigorous intellectual honesty when disagreeing with someone in a Fark thread.

ciberido:Inflatable Rhetoric: NostroZ: Inflatable Rhetoric: It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

Hey man, did you read above in your own quote what I wrote about comparisons?The soviet union did not have a religion. In fact, it was outlawed by the communist party.The Soviets killed millions of their own (under Stalin).The same thing occurred under Mao in China with the Great Leap forward. Millions of Chinese starved to death, as with Stalin.

For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Really? You haven't heard about the Inquisition?

He may well have heard about the Inquisition, but sadly, NostroZ is not renown for his rigorous intellectual honesty when disagreeing with someone in a Fark thread.

Biological Ali:why it's laughed at by those who have even a cursory familiarity with logic - including many theists).

You can laugh at me all you want.

You can pretend that I'm a troll or whatever makes you happy to 'write off the argument as silly'.

Yet, the choice is clear. Do I believe in God? Yes or No?What is the consequence of yes - What is the consequence of no.

This is Pascal's Argument... There is no getting around it.Call me whatever you want all day (abusive ad hominem Mr. Logic man), this is a real choice for real people...Belief cannot be PROVEN true or false, hence logic only goes so far.

The human brain has two hemisphere's... One is logic, the other is intuition.You're here arguing that based on ONE HEMISPHERE's function you are 100% right, but we have TWO.Logic is not the end-all-be-all for the human species. Not functionally. Not biologically.

NostroZ:vactech: NostroZ: vactech: NostroZ: That IS the question of the article and to ALL ATHEISTS... if you tear something down, what are you building in its place?

As an atheist?

Would I say we go back to pre-Jesus times where we all would crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

Yes I would, Nostro.

You seem to be under the God-Delusion that Christ is the ONLY religion people followed.

There was the Code of Hammurabi before the ten commandments.

Shiat! Code of Hammurabable...that's what I meant to say. My bad!

And prior to that there was the Code of Ur-Nammu.

Look man, religion exploded in Egypt around 4100 years ago and so did human civilization. Writing. Farming. Mathematics. Dentistry. Elaborate burial ritual, recreational games like bowling, hell BEER WAS INVENTED in Egypt around that time!

Now here you come 4100 years later and pretend that without a religious code civilization would flourish and here I am telling you, NO!Religion is the basis of modern civilization.

I'd argue that the evolution from Animism->Polytheism->Monotheism has allowed us to become the great specie we are today.

Biological Ali:Oh. You're doing that thing where you take a terms with specific, commonly-understood meanings and substitute them with meanings that are so broad as to be meaningless in order to defend some silly equivocation.

s2s2s2:Unless you use the less often accepted, but far more accurate, definition of religion that covers sports fanatics and atheist crusaders.

Not really.

I didn't put that specific definition in the dictionary. It has evolved with common usage.

NostroZ:The human brain has two hemisphere's... One is logic, the other is intuition.You're here arguing that based on ONE HEMISPHERE's function you are 100% right, but we have TWO.Logic is not the end-all-be-all for the human species. Not functionally. Not biologically.

I'm sensing a Time Cube vibe from this post. If that's what you were channeling, I've got to say you did a pretty decent job.

Biological Ali:liam76: So there is death penalty for apostacy in Uganda?

Or do you mean they are "on par" on the issue of gays, even though the law that included death penalty was never passed, yet is the law in many muslim coutnries?

Would you say that a lynching is about on par with an execution?

For the person it happens to, yeah. For judging the society? No.

One is the act of a handful and the other is supported by most people.

ciberido:So .... that's like the atheist version of "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?

And when right-wing Christians say they condemn homosexuality but don't hate gay people, you're fine with that

No. They are saying acts that are intrinsic to being gay are wrong. They are saying two consenting gay people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want. My problems with religion have no corresponding demands onw hat people should be allowed to do.

NostroZ:Agent Smiths Laugh: While we're at it, why do you capitalize ego? Also, your statements remind me of this to a degree.

I capitalized ego in the same sentence as I capitalized god, since both are bigger than life forces.

I definitely see what you mean about the ego being manipulated by religions. Yet, there are religions like Buddhism which seek to eliminate the ego. I'd also argue that the average believer gives up a part of their selfish interests in order to serve the community better (see church sales, philanthropy, etc.).

I'd argue that every believer is ultimately only serving their own ego in a number of ways. Sense of hope, Sense of superiority. Sense of belonging. Sense of purpose. Sense of destiny. Sense of love. So forth.

I'd argue that there is no actual altruism devoid of selfishness. The ego, the self, seeks gratification and preservation in all things.

Though its a bit sensationalized, and I'm not quite sure how accurate to Price's actual life it is.

In general, the human ego and god are inter-wound.My issue with atheism is that it does not address the issue of ego.Ego that when left unchecked has caused rulers of countries to kill millions in the name of progress.

Yes, indeed, human cruelty is a persistent problem for our species, justified by any number of ideologies, including religions.

Slam Dunkz:Sam responded to a lot of this hogwash on his site. Give it a read if you want to cut through the he-said-she-said and really see how disingenuous some of these reporters are.

Well, Harris is well spoken and makes a few good points, I'll give him that much. I still disagree vehemently with much of what he said in the article you linked to, but thank you for the link. Better to disagree with what he says himself than say I disagree based on what someone else said he said.

Agent Smiths Laugh:I'd argue that every believer is ultimately only serving their own ego in a number of ways. Sense of hope, Sense of superiority. Sense of belonging. Sense of purpose. Sense of destiny. Sense of love. So forth.

I'd argue that there is no actual altruism devoid of selfishness. The ego, the self, seeks gratification and preservation in all things.

Yet, what you're saying is that the ACTIONS are good... the motivation might be selfish, but the result of serving the community is real.

Therefore, the proof is in the pudding.

It does not matter if the religious congregation is fueled by purpose, belonging, destiny, love, etc.What matters is that they are improving the community!